The original problem. Ivan Zhao's thesis — heavily influenced by Douglas Engelbart and Alan Kay — was that computers should let ordinary people build their own software, and that the app-per-task model (one tool for docs, one for tasks, one for databases) was a failure of imagination.
Founder background. Zhao studied cognitive science at the University of British Columbia and worked as a designer at Inkling. Simon Last, the co-founder, was the engineer. Neither had built a company before. Zhao's background is the opposite of the typical enterprise-software founder profile, and the product reflects it.
The near-death, and what the story actually is. Notion's 1.0 was too ambitious and too buggy. By 2015 the company had raised a small seed (~$2M), had roughly a dozen people, and was running out of money. Zhao laid off the entire team except Last, moved with Last to Kyoto, and spent roughly a year rewriting the product from scratch on a much simpler technical foundation, living cheaply (Figma Blog, "How Notion pulled itself back from the brink of failure") [Well-documented across multiple interviews; the Kyoto detail is founder-told but consistently reported].
Caveat on the narrative. The Kyoto story is the most-retold part of the Notion myth and it has become smoother with each telling. What it omits: Zhao's family reportedly provided financial support during this period, the seed investors did not force a shutdown, and the company had a functioning early user base to come back to. "Two guys in Kyoto with nothing" is a better story than "two guys in Kyoto with runway and supportive investors."
Validation and first customers. Notion 1.0 relaunched in 2016 and 2.0 in 2018. Growth came almost entirely from community and template sharing — power users built elaborate Notion setups and published them, which functioned as both marketing and onboarding. Notion invested in ambassadors and creators long before that was standard practice. Critically, a shared Notion page is a public URL, which made the product its own advertisement.
Business model and pricing. Freemium, per-seat above a free tier, with a deliberately generous free plan (personal use unlimited, students free). The bet was that individual adopters would bring Notion into their workplaces — bottom-up enterprise adoption without a sales motion for years.
Funding history. Small seed, then a $10M Series A in 2019 at ~$800M, $50M in 2020 at $2B, $275M in 2021 at $10B (Coatue and Sequoia), and a reported round in 2025 valuing the company in the low-teens of billions [Reported].
Mistakes. Notion shipped an offline mode extremely late (a persistent, loudly-voiced complaint for years), was slow at large scale, and arrived late to enterprise features like granular permissions and admin controls — all consequences of the consumer-first, bottom-up strategy. It also faced a major, non-obvious competitive threat when AI assistants made "write and organize documents" a commodity feature in every suite.
Current status (September 2026). Private, ~$10B+ valuation, over 100 million users claimed, heavily pushing Notion AI and agent features. It competes simultaneously with Microsoft, Google, Atlassian, Airtable, Coda (acquired by Grammarly) and a long tail of AI-native workspaces.
Lessons that generalize.
- A rewrite can be the correct strategic move, and it requires the exact conditions Notion had: a small team, low burn, a clear technical diagnosis, and investors who would not force a sale. Rewrites destroy far more companies than they save.
- Shipping is not the same as being ready. Notion's 1.0 had users and revenue and was still fundamentally wrong. "We launched and people used it" is weaker evidence than founders want it to be.
Read the wider evidence
This entry is reproduced from the supplied research, with its inline source links retained. It has not been independently re-reported for this website conversion.
Read the complete chapter, source list, and methodological notes →